Talk:HughesNet/Archive 1

Ads
Who is the person who does the ads for DirecWay/HughesNet?

Probably Globalworks Group (see http://www.globalworks.com/work_portfolio.asp?hns)

HughesNet
Hey, why not do an article on HughesNet? We have linked to it anyways...

Move this article to HughesNet, because they are the same thing. 69.19.14.26 03:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

POV "Responses"
Some POV responses were inserted, uncited. Some of them aren't even true. Don't worry, I removed them.

'''Note: My counterarguments just demonstrate the falseness of the claims, not the reason for deletion. The reason the counters were deleted was due to uncited POV...'''

Here they are:
 * The overwhelming number of application types such as web browsing, email, instant messaging, music file download, etc. all work fine even with this less than 800 ms delay due to techniques called TCP spoofing and Performance Enhancement Proxies (PEP). It is only unacceptable delay for online shooter interactive games.
 * Obviously POV. Uncited. Bad grammar.
 * The most common internet applications are web browsing (using HTTP over TCP), email (using SMTP over TCP), instant messaging (using TCP or UDP), music file downloads (using HTTP over TCP), etc. see application protocols under []. These Internet applications over TCP provide acceptable latency and jitter over GEO satellite links through the use of Performance Enhancement Proxies [].  Only applications that "require fractions-of-a-second user inputs (such as multi-player “twitch” games or real-time equities trading) are not recommended" see HughesNet FAQ []
 * Please cite a source that stes that Hughesnet works perfectly exccluding any video games.
 * There are multitudes of studies showing TCP performance over satellite [] and there are over 280,000 users of HughesNet that show TCP works over satellite. TCP does not "break" over satellite.  In fact you will never find your desired "citation needed" for the latency criticism because these games actually do work.  TCP does not fail to communicate.  The video games do not fail because of the latency.  It is the subjective opinions (and POV) of users of the GUI of the video games that it is "unusable".  It is a human factors problem of slow response times that makes it perceived as being "unusable", not an actual application or TCP or satellite communication problem.  Just because it takes to long to react to shoot your gun in the video game making you die doesn't mean that you can't shoot your gun.  It is a GUI usability issue of the latency required by the application in order to achieve effective game play, not a communication failure of TCP.  So HughesNet does "work perfectively" because it adheres to IETF TCP standards.  HughesNet's communication transport also "works perfectively" for online interacitve video games, if you don't mind the GUI delay (from a subjective point of view).  You should just cite the HughesNet's own FAQ which states it with a NPOV [] and use its language otherwise it will remain with no citation (and be deleted?).
 * HughesNet's own FAQ is a bit POV, as I literally cannot log on to Nintendo Wi-fi. I cannot play Xbox live since i have a 5 second gui lag. I cannot play Counter-Strike or Unreal because of the lag. The delay breaks the game, it's not just graphics. --  Chris   Ccool2ax   contrib.  19:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Removing rotating IP addresses from HughesNet would not solve the Wikipedia vandalism problems due to the large number of Internet services existing that allow spoofing of IP addresses. Also, all dial-up ISPs generally rotate IP addresses on each dial-in so HughesNet is not the only ISP to do this.  Wikipedia attribution should be based upon user name, not IP address.  IP addresses are just meant for tracking anonymous users.  The range of IP addresses attributable to HughesNet customers is public information.
 * Not only is it POV, it's untrue. It wouldn't solve wikipedia problems it claims.. yes it would. We aren't talking about Other ISPs. Public info? That's not even a relevant reason why rotating IPS are bad.
 * Existing free Internet services that provide anonymity such as Tor [] can be easily used to mask the identify of vandals. Unless you eliminate these services, wikipedia vandalism problems would never be solved.  Hosts changing their IP addresses is allowed by IETF standards with protocols such as DHCP [] which have time limits on assigned IP addresses.  DHCP is used commonly by dial-up ISPs and users generally get new IPs each time they connect with their modem.  NAT [] also allows changing of IP addresses since IP addresses can be dynamically mapped for translation.  Applications should not require the same IP address to be forever used by the same host since assignment of IP addresses can change over time as allowed by IETF RFCs.  If vandalism is suspected, the block of IP addresses for the given host IP address can be easily determined from public info if it is allocated to HughesNet [].
 * I understand that other ISPs rotate. It doesn't matter hwo many people do it, it is still cited criticism.
 * You citation is invalid because it just references the main Wikipedia page that doesn't even mention vandalism. The vandalism page for Wikipedia does not even mention that rotating IP addresses contributes to vandalism [].  The valdalism page says "If the IP address continues to vandalise and is registered to a school or other kind of responsive ISP" then the address range of the ISP should be blocked so rotating IP addresses shouldn't matter since they are for the same ISP.  The anonymouse P2P page [] doesn't even mention that anonymous users contribute to vandalism even though that is the easiest means to hide identity to vandalize.  Also note that I don't believe you'll find a reference or citation that HughesNet actually "rotates" its IP addresses.  In fact I believe it just dynamically assigns them as needed and when they expire much like with DHCP.  To levy the statement that HughesNet supports vandals is a POV that has no valid citation.


 * These applications maintain very long sessions in order to download files and are also not written to allow for dynamic IP addresses. This would also be true for IP addresses allocated by DHCP.  So HughesNet should not be blamed for various applications inability to handle allowed changing of IP addresses.
 * Skype, BitTorrent, and the like can't be rewritten for their FAP. Yes they should be blamed.
 * Skype works over HughesNet []. BitTorrent works over HughesNet [].  Applications such as BitTorrent should be rewritten if they make invalid assumptions on how the Internet works for IP addresses and what is allowed by RFCs.  The criticism should be leveraged against BitTorrent since it is an application that is known to sometimes stay up for days on end to allow file sharing.
 * Skype's Hughesnet functionality is terrible. (Also, WP:CITE doesn't list forums as reliable sources). BitTorrent doesn't work on my HughesNet (although that's WP:NOR). The program needs to saty up for file sharing. There is no other method. Besides, Wikipedia policy is verifiability, not truth.
 * You implied that Skype didn't work over HughesNet. The best way to prove a negative is to show a counter example.  It is well known that VoIP applications work over HughesNet and they are even releasing a new version of HughesNet hardware that has a VOIP phone plug built in [] so the implication that VOIP doesn't work or provide needed functionality is obviously false.  I don't need a citation since Skype does work so you won't be able to find a "definitive" or "verifiable" citation stating that it doesn't ever work.  So it is not a valid criticism to say it doesn't work.  You may not like the performance (from your POV) due to the perceived voice quality, but it does work.  Since HughesNet is a star-hub network, Skype performance will be similar to calling internationally over satellite if you are talking to another non-HughesNet user.  The real criticism should be that if Skype is used between two HughesNet users, then the double satellite hops will cause latency, lag, and echos making the user perception of quality unacceptable for interactive voice communications.  BitTorrent does work on HughesNet.  Many users use bittorrent on HughesNet.  Your particular bittorrent usage seems to be with a dynamic IP address, keeping your computer turned on all the time, and keeping bittorrent running all of the time.  Yes this may cause bittorrent to get confused if the IP address changes and require a restart.  Since bittorrent was designed as a reliable large file downloader, it can also easily recover even if its IP address changes simply by restarting the connection to your peers.  If you had a static IP address, I don't believe you'd have any headaches with bittorrent usage except the increased headache of a higher monthly bill :) .  Bittorrent could also be modified since it is open source to automatically reconnect when it detects its externally visable IP address is changed using techniques such as found at [] to adhere to allowed behavior specified in IETF RFCs if you'd rather save the money.


 * Most ISPs do perform some type of cap on bandwidth so HughesNet is not unique in doing this. Most large file downloads are done automatically as background operations such as during the night and so the throttled delay just stretches out the download.  iTunes does work over HugheNet contrarey to some critisisms.  Most applications that have long download times such as bittorret naturally recover if the download is paused for an hour to recover from FAP.  This does not preclude certain types of large bandwidth applications even though it operates better with more robust downloading applications.
 * Where do I begin? Line 1: The problem stated with HughesNet is that it caps per day instead of per month. "The throttled delay just stretches out the download"... means that we make the download longer, but you're probably asleep when it happens. Plus, I've tried, you have to wait 24 hours to recover.
 * Most ISPs impose a bandwidth limitation in their Acceptable Use Policy [] similar to HughesNet's FAP. HughesNet actually caps within 1-4 hours []. FAP can recover within 8-10 hours [], not 24 hours.  Yes FAP decreases throughput of large downloads to a trickle but the secret is to tune bittorrent to not exceed the fap limits in the first place by throlling the uplink and downlink rates [] which leads to more effective downloading.
 * So slowing down your downloads is the solution? That's a terrible one. Name a cable or DSL provider that caps its downloads to 100MB daily.
 * The criticism stated HughesNet should be "avoided" instead of stating that bittorrent can be simply throttled to avoid FAP. There is a big difference in the POV that something should be avoided because it is perceived to not work versus tuning the application to operate effectively.  As with all AUPs from all ISPs, there are different levels of caps on usage based upon how much you pay for the service.  It is a simple cost vs. capacity trade that all ISPs perform.  The fact that it is measured hourly, daily, monthly, yearly shouldn't matter since that is up to the ISP to define their usage terms and up to the customer to determine from their POV if that is an acceptable cost for the given capacity.  It is not for you to decide if that is a resonable trade because your POV is biased to your circumstances and does not apply to everyone else.  Leave the criticism to state that HughesNet is more expensive compared to DSL and Cable along with quoting the price versus usage limits.  Just because I believe the cost of DSL service is to expensive compared to its usage limits, doesn't mean it is a valid citable criticism because it is just an opinion that I think it is too expensive for what you get.


 * Yes the current costs are slightly more than DSL and cable modems but generally satellite internet is used by those who can not even access DSL and cable modems in their home. Also, there are periodic deals such as on installation costs and monthly installment plans to streach out the hardware costs just like with DSL and cable modems.  HughesNet is following the lead set by DirecTV where the user owns the hardware instead of Cable ISPs which make you rent it forever.


 * Slightly more meaing $600 setup and $100/month. Liek everything else, uncited, POV, and untrue.
 * Standard costs are well documented []. Specials such as "$200 rebate" and "$99.99 up front, and $99.99 for Home service" are only now and then [].
 * DSL has specials too. Why do you advocate HughesNet so much?
 * If you look at my original counter point, I was agreeing with the criticism that it is more expensive. I was also clarifying that the comparison is not important if DSL and cable are not even available.


 * Contrary to some Cable company ads, this happens infrequently each year and satellite services generally have an availability comparable with Cable ISPs over the entire year when service outages are included. As HNS has stated, they are not trying to compete against DSL and Cable Modems [] so why is a statement about cost comparison necessary if it doesn't apply in rural areas.


 * I have never seen a cable internat ad claiming this. Infrequently meaning 6 hours/month in tempearate climates? Downtime (HughesNet outages+inclement weather)>Cable outages.
 * ISP outages far exceed rain outages so overall downtimes tend to average out to be the same (all poor).


 * I personally heard a radio ad from Comcast attacking DirecTV due to its outages during rainfade. Others heard ads like it as well: "Don't listen to the cable industry's attack ads. - DirecTV Inc" [].  Availability for ISPs is generally in the 99.5% range [].  "Unshceduled" maintenance is generally the cause for most network outages [].

The user is welcome to repost the facts if they are written in neutral point of view and are cited. -- Chris   Ccool2ax   contrib.  03:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

On second thought... Don't repost it. Not only is some of the information untrue (and, more importantly, unverifiable in a reputable source), I don't think anyone could rewrite it in a neutral tone. The author of most of the Criticisms section cites HughesNet policy and sould reference (ill get to it, one second) some of the below-listed external links. Not every pint needs a counterpoint, especially if the counterpoint is as POV as yours. -- Chris   Ccool2ax   contrib.  13:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm still waiting for you to find something I've stated as actually untrue... I obviously take it personal when I think someone calls me a liar... :(


 * Please reconsider your POV since I've documented my claims and the POV criticisms still contain vague biased phrases like:
 * "service unusable for many network games" since it is not clearly stated which types of games are not usable since it is not clear why Counter-Strike is an example of a game that doesn't work
 * you havent documented your claims. Or cited most of them. Although I do agree the games section needs a citation, all online console games and most online PC games DO NOT work with sattelite due to network latency. And it's not my point of view, its somoeone elses neutral presentation of HughesNet criticisms.
 * My complaint was with the vague characterization of the criticism since it was uncited and the implication that the problem is more widespread for other types of applications since most readers probably don't know what type of game Counter-Strike represents


 * "lead to problems like Wikipedia vandalism problems" since HughesNet isn't causing this problem and having HughesNet fix its IP still wouldn't fix Wikipedia vandalism (are there any cases of HughesNet customers actually performing vandalism anyway or are they assumed to be guilty since they have the capability)
 * If HN gave out static IPs, it would cut all HN vandalism because vandals would be ginven one easy-to-block identity.
 * If IPv4 address weren't so hard to come by or everyone was using IPv6, then I've sure HN would give out static IPs to everyone but that is not the reality of IP address assignments for ISPs today. It is just as easy to block a range of IPs for the ISP.


 * "make user-to-user programs like Soulseek and BitTorrent clients unusable" BitTorrent does work along with other peer-to-peer applications.
 * A ciation is needed, but no it doesnt. I am using hughesnet right now and it wont owrk.
 * Bittorrent does work and I use it over HughesNet to download. You just aren't defining "won't work" and since it doesn't apply in all cases, it is a incorrect statement to say that it doesn't work categorically in all cases.
 * "file-sharers (as well as moderate to heavy downloaders) are advised to avoid satellite internet providers" since this advise is a POV, can it be removed
 * No it is not pov, it is stating advice. Wikipedia isnt giving the advice.
 * First, it is not all "file-sharers" that should avoid it since sharing of MP3 files doesn't run up against FAP. It is "file sharers of large files such as 2 hour movies".  "Moderate to heavy downloaders" really should be clarified that it is regular movie downloaders that should be so advised.  When advice is imprecise and applied to cases when it is not warrented, it becomes misleading advice.


 * "the effects of capping on satellite users are more pronounced" why in your POV are they more pronounced?  Can't you just have the actual FAP thresholds themselves as a NPOV?
 * This one is a bit more objectionable, but i still think its neutral.


 * "this form of bandwidth capping is unique in that it can preclude certain types of internet use" is not true since iTunes can be used and vague "certain types of internet use" is not "precluded".
 * Verifiability, not truth. And no, I Can't download a full-length iTMS movie over HughesNet.
 * If you can find reliable citations stating iTunes crashes or never completes in the case of "full-length 2 hour iTunes movies can't be downloaded over HughesNet with the home service plan only" then include that instead of saying iTunes in general is unusable. I use iTunes all of the time for audio podcasts and music files.


 * The criticism about VPNs over satellite should also be mentioned since PEP can't be performed without special HughesNet software [] leaving most end-users with a 50% speed decrease []

Also, soory that i'm biting you, but please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policy, how to edit, etc. You seem to have misinterpreted NPOV and don't know about WP:V. I owuldn't reccomend making changes to articles because of policy before reading and discussing them. Even the most experienced Wikipedians will discuss major changes. Um... I don't know what's left to tell you. Oh yeah, I can tell you're an employee of HughesNet by your IP address. Defending your company's every move is considered WP:VANITY, and you have shown a large bias toward your company. -- Chris   Ccool2ax   contrib.  01:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Granted I'm a newcomer. I actually do appreciate you putting up with my responses.  I'm trying to learn by using the discussion page instead of "vandalising" the main article page under cover of my HughesNet "rotating" IP :) .  The IP address is a static IP for a HughesNet customer with a HughesNet PROFESSIONAL service.  As a long term customer, I felt the original criticisms were not clearly stated and warranted clarification, hence my counter points.  Note that I did not delete the original largely uncited criticisms to be fair to them but simply offerred a rebutal and clarification inline for each.  Also note that I added the new criticism about rainfade and would strongly recommend that you add the criticism about VPNs (see above) since that is a major weakness of HughesNet for telecommuters.  As a newcomer who got slapped on the wrist, I won't touch the main article but I am hoping that you consider my arguments on their merits and that you provide clarifications and citations in the main article to improve it.  Also a newcomer, I thought I'm allowed to use the discussion page to voice discussions on and on and on and on... :)
 * this looks like a good reference on rainfade since you are still looking for a citation [] but I'll let you edit the main article... :)
 * Well, I'll try to add some of the "counterpoints" to the article. Meanwhile, have you received help from the Welcoming Comittee? They will give you a message with links to most everything you need to know to edit Wikipedia. Also, getting a user account is free and talkes literally ten seconds. Thanks for your contributions and, once again, I will try to merge them in the least POV way possible. -- Chris   Ccool2ax   contrib.  16:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

to that of the DirecPC satellite gateway so that information from the remote Internet host is returned to the gateway instead of to the user via his Internet service provider." []. So it looks like they could be using NAT with an address lifetime shorter than you would like (see section 4 in [] where IPSEC tries to address a similar problem).  You may be able to fix the "problem" with a continuous slow background ping (i.e. DOS command: ping -t myhughesnet.com).  This will keep your IP address constantly "in use" even while you are doing local wiki page edits thus keeping your address alive.  I don't believe they will let an active "in use" address expire since they probably want to avoid dropping packets "in-flight" that used the previous NAT address.
 * Even though this isn't the kind of discussion forum to resolve problems, the problems you described with "rotating" IP addresses got me thinking. Since I have a static IP for VPN reasons and don't recall using bittorrent when I had an dynamic IP before, I never saw this problem.  I don't believe they use "rotating" addresses but my guess is that they are using a pool of IP addresses.  They probably throw your "idle" IP address back into a least-recently-used NAT address pool to be used by the next person to do an implicit "soft" NAT logon when they send a packet.  They did something like that for the original DirecPC: "The source address of the original IP datagram is then changed